Fair enoughrbodleyscott wrote:I think we will have to agree to disagree on this subject.
Luke Ueda-Sarson wrote:The evidence for the late 6th century would seem to
indicate metal thorakes in the large majority, but it is far from
clear if this was still true by 480 even in the (less prevalent)
artistic depictions; given the 480 armies were mass levies one might
expect a lower average quality even without the artistic evidence (or
to be more precise, lack of it. There are of course depictions of
hoplites from this era- lots even, bit noticeably less that before).
I'm not sure that Luke's statement actually says that. He seems to be using the argument that, as the armies of 480 were mass levies, they were likely to have LESS armour. It also does not suggest that any 'armoured' hoplites would be in different units to the mass of 'protected' hoplites - they would all be mixed together with each hoplite equipped with what he could afford/felt was necessary. Nor does it throw any light on this 'transition period' of 490-460 you have identified when metal armour supposedly fell out of favour. I think you'd have to look to the later Peleponessian War before economic hardship could be called on as a factor.rbodleyscott wrote: As you can see the evidence is unclear, but the presence of a significant proportion of metal armoured men in 480 remains a reasonable possibility - hence the list allows for either situation.
However, at the risk of dragging things out further, what this seems to be telling me is that AoW gives 'armoured' hoplites significant advantages over 'protected' hoplites. If this is correct I get the distinct feeling that AoW is a bit too 'equipment orientated' for my taste.
To my mind, hoplites were hoplites. Some were good (Spartans), some were bad (Etruscans if you believe Livy
) most were average. What type of body armour they wore was not particularly relevant.But enough said, I'll shut up now
Benny
